Re: Discussion on ISSUE-79: meta-keywords

Julian Reschke, Wed, 24 Feb 2010 15:11:06 +0100:
> On 24.02.2010 13:44, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> I support this change proposal. But I think that Julian should update
>> the section about positive and negative effects:
>> 
>>>> 1. Positive Effects
>>>> 
>>>> Documents using meta/@name="keywords" will be conforming again.
>> 
>> 2) In addition they will be able to use them for specific purposes -
>> such as search engines inside and outside controlled environments, as
>> the change proposal explains.
> 
> I can add that; but I'd prefer not to post an updated CP unless 
> needed. (Chairs?).
> 
>> 3) A third positive effect is that profile extensions (such as Dublin
>> Core) will be able to use them. HTML4 gives example of such use, and
>> more such use can e.g. be spotted in the examples and source code the
>> DC-HTML specification. Not having this option will make DC-HTML pages
>> invalid.
> 
> Note sure about this.
> 
> This issue is not about meta/@name values in general, but the value 
> "keywords" specifically. How is that relevant to profile extensions 
> and/or DC-HTML?

OK. I misunderstood that aspect of your proposal. I guess I perceived 
"keywords" as a synonymous with "value of the meta@name attribute. And, 
also, in HTML4 then any value is valid, but only those values that are 
supported by an actual profile specification, carries any meaning.

HTML4 probably mentions name="keywords" many more times than it 
mentions other meta@name values. But I am not sure that we can say that 
HTML4 defines "keywords" as a <meta@name> value. HTML4 says:

 ]]name = name [CS]  This attribute identifies a property name. 
      This specification does not list legal values for this
      attribute.[[

HTML4 defers to profiles to _eventually_  ("SHOULD") define the 
property names:

 ]] The meaning of a property and the set of legal values for that
       property should be defined in a reference lexicon called a 
       profile.[[

And hence it was logical of me to expect that you wanted to make _any_ 
value of <meta@name> valid.

So then I perceive this as a proposal about being more compatible with 
"the Web" than the current HTML5 draft is. As such I maintain my 
support for the proposal.

But aren't there more meta@name values mentioned in HTML4 that ought to 
be formally valid in HTML5? I found 3 values that are not present in 
HTML5, but which HTML4 mentions:

 name="ROBOTS" content="ALL, INDEX, NOFOLLOW, NOINDEX"
                                     (section B.4.1 Search robots)
 name="copyright"  (section 7.4.4 Meta data 
                   "hypothetical profile … for document indexing")
 name="date"  (section 7.4.4 Meta data)
                   "hypothetical profile … for document indexing")

All of which are mentioned in relationship to search engines and 
indexing. I believe all of these are in use?
-- 
leif halvard silli

Received on Wednesday, 24 February 2010 16:14:11 UTC